Yarnspinner, you said everything I would say, too. I love most of his writing, but you're dead on about his bad guys. Andi is also right, his short stories don't do this as much. And he lost me after It, too. I did read Under the Dome and enjoyed it except for the completely ridiculous ending and its bloatedness. Absolutely loved 11/22/63.

I haven't read Joyland yet, but I read a review that mentioned his jabs at a certain politician. I'm not getting into politics here, but if you're writing a fiction book, don't disparage or glorify real human beings. At least I don't think you should. Why would you want to alienate anyone? I guess if you have more money than Deity, it doesn't matter who you upset.

Big house. Northeastern State. Spiders. Many movies made of his books. (One of them three times and I am so looking forward to the new version!)

I LOVE the guy, but does every single solitary evil character of late HAVE to be a wealthy, politically corrupt, supposedly conservative, gun totin' whack job with delusions of Jehovah? Does everyone who believes in a certain faith have to also be a fundamentalist lunatic on the verge of equating Jehovah with Chthulu? Religion doesn't screw up everyone's life, Mr. King and for many it is not an opiate but a deep and abiding comfort.

This doesn't mean that I don't think Margaret White of "Carrie" is a boring one dimensional or even evil character: her sick interpretation of her religion made her who she was and destroyed herself and Carrie and that made the story deeply human. King excels at creating deeply human characters that you KNOW deep in your heart that you have met.

But lately, he just seems to have a bag of stock characters he plugs in whenever he needs to have a bad guy. Granted I haven't read ALL his books (he lost me after IT), but every story I pick up of late is either red neck (Desperation) or rich, evil and definitely suggested to be of one particular party (Bag of Bones) or, in the case of Joyland, one character is portrayed in the broadest strokes as a religious nutjob with too much money and a firm grasp on his gun. (He's not the bad guy, but he might as well be.)

I LOVED Joyland....but I would love to see something with a happy hippy dippy character turning out to be the bad guy.

The first thing that came to mind with this description is "Helter Skelter", but that's not really a novel...

Ok - I'm gla dim not the only one that picked up on that with him. Its less of an issue in his short stories, think that's why I like them so much

As much as I live for the movies made from his books, I only read his short stories. I just could never get into the novels.

The short stories are great, especially the early ones under Richard Bachman. I don't read any of the recent novels, but The Eyes of the Dragon is amazing. And I'm helplessly addicted to the Dark Tower series. Until he inserted himself into it, that was weird, but the overall story is great.

But yeah, I can't handle any of his "realistic" stuff set in modern day Earth. It's just...no. If I want a political rant, I'll head on over to any of the national news sites and read the comments on any political story. I don't need to pay for that.

We were just talking about, in another thread, the length of time one is expected to guard against spoilers (watch out for spoilers regarding Pride and Prejudice, Star Wars, and other things which have been out for a while!). It seems pretty unfair to NEVER be able to discuss plot twists! Sometimes, you need to get off your duff and keep up with the times, or suffer the consequences.

I remember when the show "Rome" was being discussed over on the TWoP boards. Someone complained about people "spoiling" the fact that Caesar was assassinated. I think they added a disclaimer, "It's not a spoiler if its been aired on the East Coast...or if it happened over 2000 years ago."

I'm a big fan of The Lizzie Bennett Diaries, a modern adaptation of Pride and Prejudice as a series of vlogs. As everyone thought all the viewers would know the story, we were more speculating about how certain events would be adapted to modern day (eg, Lydia's elopement). Imagine our surprise when someone started complaining that we had "spoiled" that Jane and Bingly (or Bing Lee in the vlogs) reunite and Lizzie and Darcy get together!

I remember this when the Titanic movie came out. People were talking in line about how they might portray the boat sinking, and preteens in line were shocked and upset that they "spoiled" the movie by saying the boat would sink!

I think if an event is actually true from history, it can't be a spoiler!

I think if an event is actually true from history, it can't be a spoiler!

I think it can, if it's obscure or just not something most people would know off the top of their head. "The Titanic sank" does not qualify, in my opinion, and I doubt very much anyone who made the film thought its viewers wouldn't know what was going to happen.

Yarnspinner, you said everything I would say, too. I love most of his writing, but you're dead on about his bad guys. Andi is also right, his short stories don't do this as much. And he lost me after It, too. I did read Under the Dome and enjoyed it except for the completely ridiculous ending and its bloatedness. Absolutely loved 11/22/63.

I was pretty "meh" about most of his books - had read a handful and liked "Insomnia" and "The Stand" well enough, but wasn't blown away by either. Then along came "Under the Dome" and "11/22/63" and I fell in love. Still don't like his older works, but those two were terrific!

I think if an event is actually true from history, it can't be a spoiler!

I think it can, if it's obscure or just not something most people would know off the top of their head. "The Titanic sank" does not qualify, in my opinion, and I doubt very much anyone who made the film thought its viewers wouldn't know what was going to happen.

The same with The Other Boleyn Girl. No, don't complain to me that someone spoiled you for how Anne Boleyn died because I will think you're being daft.

The problem is that it is hard to say what might be "obscure" history to everyone. If you have studied the history of continents other than Europe - then "Julius Caesar being assassinated" might not have been relevant to Zulu wars of the 19th century, the succession of pharaoh around the time of the building of the Great Pyramid, barbarian invasions of China toward the end of the Ming Dynasty, or Mayan sacrificial rites.

You might not be up on relatively recent events like Apollo 13 if you concentrate on Medieval studies. Although you might have picked up a bit of the history of Rome and the Middle East as it applied to the Crusades and the Church...or might not...

I must admit I chuckled a year ago. Our grandson was in the high schools' performance of West Side Story. (Bragging: He was Officer Krupke as a sophomore!) I have the original movie video and have probably watched it more than 20 times over the past 30 years, and of course I read Romeo and Juliet twice in school.

The teens sitting in just in front of us didn't seem to be familiar with either version of the story line and they were very vocal in their reactions. One of the young ladies really got caught up in it and said, "NOnononono! They didn't!" when Tony got shot. (Hope that's not a spoiler for anyone!)

Then I realized that seeing the story through young eyes is an entirely different experience!

And yes, I still rewind the tape (I have and use my VCR with CD player) when the last scene begins sometimes. And I still cry, despite knowing what happens. (And I miss Natalie Wood and the rest of exceptionally talented cast and musicians!)

So, my point is that I don't give a darn about spoilers and often forget that others do, I guess they do matter to some, and I'm not sure there is a time or experience limit for them.

Wickham turned white, because the sudden appearance of Darcy frightened him, and Darcy flushed in anger at seeing him. At least, that's how I always read it.

Same for me.

I thought about it a minute, and this has to be it, since it's not really likely that Wickham would blush with shame. Although I have seen people holding their lips so tightly that they went white, when trying to keep from saying anything when they were furious.

I actually always read this the other way around. I could see Darcy as being the sort of person who goes white with anger, while Wickham might not have been embarrassed, but he would have been afraid of having his true character revealed, which could cause him to redden.

The problem is that it is hard to say what might be "obscure" history to everyone. If you have studied the history of continents other than Europe - then "Julius Caesar being assassinated" might not have been relevant to Zulu wars of the 19th century, the succession of pharaoh around the time of the building of the Great Pyramid, barbarian invasions of China toward the end of the Ming Dynasty, or Mayan sacrificial rites.

You might not be up on relatively recent events like Apollo 13 if you concentrate on Medieval studies. Although you might have picked up a bit of the history of Rome and the Middle East as it applied to the Crusades and the Church...or might not...

I concur. A bit more generally -- many people are remarkably not-au-fait with what many of us would tend to think common knowledge for everyone who's literate -- and those seemingly-ignorant folk, are by no means necessarily, total "dimbulbs" -- they can be very sharp about the stuff in life which actually affects them. Very broadly speaking, we tend to focus on what interests / concerns us, and to tune out what doesn't. Some people do retain information about matters of no interest to them; but I'd hazard a guess that such people are in the minority, especially after leaving formal education.

I'm tempted to cite my ex. She was by no means stupid, but she very much didn't "do" general knowledge which was of no practical use to her. She probably knew that the Titanic sank -- but I wouldn't have staked my life on her knowing that.

Wickham turned white, because the sudden appearance of Darcy frightened him, and Darcy flushed in anger at seeing him. At least, that's how I always read it.

Same for me.

I thought about it a minute, and this has to be it, since it's not really likely that Wickham would blush with shame. Although I have seen people holding their lips so tightly that they went white, when trying to keep from saying anything when they were furious.

It may have to do with the four humors, which were still the most popular way at the time of displaying personality and making diagnoses. For someone to flush would indicate a choleric temperament, someone who is passionate and possibly quick to anger. Going pale might be more phlegmatic, kind and quiet, or possibly lazy.